Re: Something about PEAR policy

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:09:26 -0400 (EDT), nathan r. hruby wrote: > > >On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > >> >As Nathan Ruby says in his e-mail, > >> >you PEAR folks don't want to have more than one class > >> >for each category, e.g. two or more classes for DB > >> >abstraction, templates and so on. > >> > >> That's not right: A few days ago we had a discussion about adding > >> a new templating engine instead of IT[X] to PEAR: We came to the > >> conclusion, that we could have more than one engine in PEAR, if > >> the engines are designed for different needs. Example: We might > >> present IT[X] for "normal, light-weight" sites and Smarty for > >> high-traffic sites with the need of "extreme programming methods". > >> > >> But I think this has to be discussed for each individual category. > >> > > > >The two above statements are contradictory. > > No, IMO they are not. It is my personal opinion, that the fact > of allowing two different classes with the same purpose in > PEAR currently has to be discussed in each single case. When somebody > comes up with a better idea how to handle this, I'll probably change > my mind. But right now nobody came up with an idea ... > Define PEAR, that will (for the most part) catagorically answer this question. The allowing more classes question is a symptom of seeing trees instead of forest. > >I think this thinks goes long with the App Framework questions > > Wasn't this questions already answered a few days ago? (I don't > remember exactly and I'm to laz^H^H busy to search for it right > now.) > > >Is it a huge CPAN-like repository? > > It is inspired by CPAN. What it will be in the future, depends > IMO on what you and others want => Tell us, what you want. > > >I've seen many concepts fly across this list about > >those questiosn from a lot of people, all diffrent, no one every really > >agreeing on anything. > > IIRC you have never been discussing with us about PEAR topics, right? > (May be I'm wrong.) And now you suddenly come up complaining. Wouldn't > it be better if you invoke discussions about concepts on pear-dev > instead of simply complaining? > Umm. I have. I joind this list in January when the original announcement of PHPLib being ported to PEAR and voiced my opnions, ideas and concerns about PEAR and the port then. As well as in March, when I brought the whole damn thing up again, and again now. My postions has always been clear: - PEAR needs a more clearly defined structure - PEAR can (and should) support App Framworks - PEAR should be more CPAN like - PEAR should be less insular, more open - PEAR folks needs to lighten up ;) Yes, I don't get into discussions about the semantics and coding practices, becasue frankly I just don't care, because to me PEAR has larger issues to address and talking about other things just complicates matters more. -n -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- nathan hruby / digital statement nathan@dstatement.com http://www.dstatement.com/ Public GPG key can be found at: http://www.dstatement.com/nathan-gpg-key.txt ED54 9A5E 132D BD01 9103 EEF3 E1B9 4738 EC90 801B -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-